PTWhy do companies choose to train people with game elements?
Points, levels, rankings and challenges have entered corporate training. The thesis heard 16 HR and technology professionals who build this kind of training in award-winning companies. What weighs most in the choice is interactivity, the chance to measure progress and learners' engagement. Explained in 12 screens.
Each column is one of the 27 topics (codes) that came up in the interviews; its height is how many times it was mentioned. The three tallest are highlighted. Drag to rotate.
Gamifying does not mean turning training into a game
Gamification is using game elements and techniques in something that is not a game, such as a company course. The thesis starts from a pyramid widely used in business: what you see (points, rankings) sits at the base, but it only works with the rules and the meaning above it. Tap a layer.
Section 2.1.3 and Figure 2, from Werbach and Hunter's pyramid (published in 2012, revised in 2020). The definition of gamification is by Deterding and colleagues (2011), section 2.1. The pyramid is redrawn by us; layer heights measure nothing.
A market worth billions and few theses on gamification in companies
Game-based learning moves billions of dollars and grows every year. In Brazilian business research, however, the author found only 10 theses on gamification in the CAPES catalog (CAPES is the federal agency that keeps the country's theses), and almost none on training. Tap a dot on the timeline.
Section 1 and Table (Quadro) 1, search done in May 2025. Market figures come from reports cited by the thesis, not from the research itself. How many theses have "training" (treinamento) in the title is our count. The thesis also notes that, in international databases, business articles on gamification in training only start in 2020.
Sixteen people who build gamified training explained why they chose it
Between November 2024 and February 2025, the author interviewed 9 HR professionals and 7 technical ones (design, programming, user experience). All had 7 or more years in the profession and worked in companies holding people-management seals, such as Great Place To Work, or in award-winning startups. Color the figures or tap a person.
Section 3.3 and Tables (Quadros) 10, 11 and 13. Counts by view are ours. The author removed the names of people, companies and products; here we also do not show each person's job title or sector. Interviews were transcribed with the help of software and checked line by line.
From talk to themes: 27 codes, 7 categories and 5 themes
The author read the interviews in the MAXQDA software and tagged the important excerpts with a code (such as "feedback" or "autonomy"). Then the codes were grouped into categories and categories into themes. A theme can draw on several categories. Tap a category or a theme.
Section 3.4, Table (Quadro) 14, Table 1 and the opening of chapter 4. Excerpts per category are our sum from Table 1 (one excerpt can carry more than one code). Theme-category links follow the list at the start of chapter 4.
Interactivity, metrics and engagement are the topics that come up most
Interactivity is the code with the most excerpts (25). When you count how many people mentioned each one, metrics (measuring progress, points, rankings, indicators) moves ahead: 13 of the 16. Switch the measure and the profile, and tap a bar.
Technical staff talk more about the tool; HR, about learners' autonomy
Since there are 7 technical professionals and 9 HR ones, we compare the average excerpts per person in each profile. Technical staff mention mastery of the tool, inner motivation and playfulness more; HR mentions autonomy, the method's support to course design and engagement. Tap a row.
Table 1, averages calculated by us. The thesis does not compare the two profiles; with 7 and 9 people, read the differences as clues about each group's view, not as a rule.
Interactivity shows up alongside almost every other topic, above all playfulness
In MAXQDA, the author checked which codes appear in the same excerpt as interactivity. It overlaps with 15 of the other 26, most often with playfulness (the fun side) and autonomy. For the interviewees, being interactive is what lets people decide, test and have fun. Tap a code.
Table 3 and Figure 19, redrawn by us. Line thickness is the number of times both codes appear together. The quotes are excerpts the thesis presents with both codes.
Prizes help, but the motivation that lasts comes from within
Intrinsic motivation comes from interest and satisfaction with the activity itself; extrinsic motivation, from rewards such as prizes, coins and discounts. In the interviews, intrinsic motivation links to seven other topics; extrinsic, only to engagement. Tap a pan of the scale.
Table 2 and section 4.4. Each block is a link between codes in Table 2 (intrinsic with seven codes, once each; extrinsic with engagement, twice). The tilt of the scale is our sketch based on those links, not a measure of strength.
Gamification works when it is part of the training design
For the interviewees, game elements come in from the start: in diagnosing what the team needs to learn, in the learning model and in the course rules. They are not "a few points or a prize at the end". Compare the two ways and see the answers to the thesis's three questions.
Sections 4.1 and 5 ("method support" code, excerpts from RH 04, RH 05 and RH 07). The layers are our sketch based on the thesis's conclusions, which tie gamification to the diagnosis and planning stages of training; heights measure nothing.
Almost everyone talked about measuring; only one person talked about data ethics
Even among people who chose gamification, brakes came up. Think of your answer and tap the card to see what the interviews showed.
Sections 4.5 and 5 and Table 1. The quotes are excerpts coded as "resistance to using the method", "time balanced with work" and "knowledge of the tool".
Before points and prizes comes the design of the training
HR and training managers
Start from what the team needs to learn and from the business strategy; use gamification as part of the design, with interaction, choices and practice, not as a layer of points at the end.
Those who build the solution
Dose the fun, give instant feedback, let people choose their path and adjust the difficulty. Tangible rewards come in as a complement to inner motivation.
Those who measure results
Measuring progress, completion and participants' opinions helps the team and motivates learners. Participants need to know what data is collected and agree to it, as the open gamification code of ethics cited in the thesis asks.
Participants
Ask for time within working hours to train and for content in short doses. Without time, no game mechanic keeps people engaged. · our reading, based on the interviews
What this research does not say
- It only heard people who had already chosen gamification. So, as the author acknowledges, few counterpoints appear; the thesis explains the decision, it does not compare it with people who gave up or never used it.
- It did not hear the training participants. What is said about motivation and retention comes from those who build the courses; the author suggests studying users, with mixed methods.
- 16 people from companies with good-practice seals, found through events and professional networks. Companies without that structure may decide differently.
- Counting excerpts does not measure effectiveness. Figures quoted in the interviews, such as a 98% approval for one training, are the interviewees' reports, not results measured by the thesis. · our note
Credits
SANTOS, Siméia de Azevedo. Elementos decisores na escolha de gamificação para processos de treinamento [Deciding elements in the choice of gamification for training processes]. Doctoral thesis (Business Administration), Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, 2025. Advisor: Prof. Dr. Almir Martins Vieira.
The author had a full tuition and fee waiver from the Mackenzie Presbyterian Institute. This version simplifies the work for a general audience; the full tables, quotes and references are in the original text.